Official Hooktube Thread

Since every other discussion seems to be getting derailed with Hooktube/Anti-hooktube flaming. So type away! I'll start:

Anti-hooktubers, why don't you like Hooktube? Are you incredulous to the legitimacy of such a project? Or do you think it's unethical? Or are you frustrated that there are people using Hooktube and not looking for a true, viable alternative to YouTube?

>>135
Didn't you already say that? In this thread, even. Why are you repeating yourself? Wasn't it already established that there would never be a competing YouTube alternative if it were to follow similar means?

Also, not to sound condescending, but you don't understand how p2p works, clearly. It's just another protocol alongside http. Among instances where a bittorrent file has the same infrastructure and resources as a popular www site (such as Slackware's torrents of their installation mediums), speeds are not only equivocal to that of a http download, but faster and more efficient in low-bandwidth scenarios. Why? Because that's the whole reason why bittorrent was fucking made. With the advent of The Pirate Bay, there are bittorrent clients that will literally stream while the video is downloading, because there are so many peers, who seed at a capacity even larger than by conventional means. This stereotype that bittorrent is slow only exists because of ghetto torrents on public trackers with two or three shitty seeders. Among torrents that actually use bittorrent for what it's meant to be used for, large binary files, and who actually distribute legitimate non-copyrighted files that large numbers of people actually care about, like Canonical's Ubuntu, bittorrent is blatantly superior. And guess what p2p network is built on bittorrent? That's right: ipfs. The only thing hindering ipfs and many of these distributed (note, I didn't say decentralized, like with Tor) networks is popularity. My point isn't that all the links on ipfs, even in an ideal world, would be perfectly seeded; my point is that bittorrent and ipfs thereby have the theoretical capacity not only to be a viable alternative to our modern internet but vastly better.

And shame on you for generalizing p2p the way you are. Protocols like i2p are vastly different, than, say freenet. Not only in the sense that they provide different means by different implementations, but they have different directions and are solutions for oftentimes completely different ends.